superconducting qubits - arxiv · 2012. 2. 27. · the two-qubit interaction is the cr e ect and...

Complete universal quantum gate set approaching fault-tolerant thresholds withsuperconducting qubits

Jerry M. Chow,1 Jay M. Gambetta,1 A. D. Corcoles,1 Seth T. Merkel,1 John A. Smolin,1 Chad Rigetti,1 S.

Poletto,1 George A. Keefe,1 Mary B. Rothwell,1 J. R. Rozen,1 Mark B. Ketchen,1 and M. Steffen1

1IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA(Dated: February 27, 2012)

We use quantum process tomography to characterize a full universal set of all-microwave gates ontwo superconducting single-frequency single-junction transmon qubits. All extracted gate fidelities,including those for Clifford group generators, single-qubit π/4 and π/8 rotations, and a two-qubitcontrolled-NOT, exceed 95% (98%), without (with) accounting for state preparation and measure-ment errors. Furthermore, we introduce a process map representation in the Pauli basis which isvisually efficient and informative. This high-fidelity gate set serves as another critical building blocktowards scalable architectures of superconducting qubits for error correction schemes.

PACS numbers: 03.67.Ac, 42.50.Pq, 85.25.-j

A critical prerequisite for building a scalable fault-tolerant quantum computer is the application of errorcorrection codes [1–3]. In order to employ these codes,the underlying quantum gates must be performed withhigh fidelity above certain threshold levels. Experimen-tally, the onus currently lies in making scalable physicalsystems with universal quantum gate sets which surpassthese thresholds.

Two-dimensional error-correction surface codes, withgate fidelity thresholds of ∼90-99.5% depending on mea-surement errors [2–4], are particularly well-suited for su-perconducting qubit quantum processors, as repetitivetiling of qubit and resonator networks are apposite toproposed nearest-neighbor lattices [5]. Regarding su-perconducting qubits, single-qubit average gate fideli-ties exceeding 99% have been shown [6, 7], two-qubitgates are capable of entangled state fidelities greaterthan 90% [8, 9], and three-qubit entanglement has beenobserved [10]. Furthermore, recent experiments show-ing tenfold increases in coherence times of Josephson-junction qubits [7, 11, 12] suggest that characterizationof a complete high-fidelity universal set of quantum gatesin superconducting qubits should be realizable.

In this Letter we report gate fidelities greater than95% for a complete universal set of gates for two fixed-frequency superconducting qubits. The qubits are single-junction transmons (SJT), coupled via a coplanar waveg-uide resonator [13]. The coherence times for our two SJTdevice are over twice as long as those of any previouslyreported superconducting multi-qubit system [9]. Thegates characterized in this work include the single-qubitrotations {I,Xπ, Xπ/2, Yπ/2, Xπ/4, Xπ/8}⊗2 (Rθ repre-sents a rotation of angle θ around axis R) and a two-qubit CNOT. The combination of the π/4 rotation (com-monly referred to as the π/8 gate [14]), the Clifford groupgenerators {Xπ/2, Yπ/2}, and the two-qubit CNOT forma universal set [1]. The two-qubit CNOT between thefixed-frequency qubits is implemented using the cross-

resonance (CR) interaction [9, 15, 16]. Although the gatefidelities are obtained via standard quantum process to-mography (QPT) of each respective gate, in this work weintroduce a different, but efficient visual representationof process maps, the Pauli transfer matrix, R. R de-scribes the action of a process on the components of thedensity matrix represented in the basis of Pauli operatorsand helps establish a number of properties of the under-lying process which are otherwise hidden in the standardchi-matrix representation [14]. We find slight variationsin the fidelities across the different gates and, from theassociated maps, identify that our errors are not coher-ence limited but rather control limited and inherent inthe QPT scheme. This suggests that as superconduct-ing qubits continue to improve in coherence times, theadoption of longer control sequences inspired by nuclearmagnetic resonance quantum computing [17], and otherefficient gate characterization schemes, will become nec-essary.

The transmon qubit has become a popular choice forsuperconducting quantum computing applications due toits excellent coherence properties [13]. Implementationsof transmons in planar qubit-cavity devices have tradi-tionally been formed via capacitively shunting a Cooper-pair box, preserving tunability of the qubit transitionfrequencies. The ability to dynamically tune qubit fre-quencies is necessary for a number of entangling gateschemes [8, 18] but often involves fast flux-biasing to fre-quencies with reduced coherence. In this work, we focusonly on fixed-frequency SJTs, having previously gener-ated entangled states using an all-microwaves scheme [9].

Two SJTs [Fig. 1(a)] with transition frequenciesω1/2π = 5.0554 GHz and ω2/2π = 4.9895 GHz arecoupled via a 7.325 GHz coplanar waveguide resonator.Single-qubit rotations are performed by irradiating eachqubit through independent on-chip microwave bias linesat the respective transition frequency. The relaxation

times of the two qubits are measured to be T(1)1 = 8.2 µs

arX

iv:1

202.

5344

v1 [

quan

t-ph

] 2

3 Fe

b 20

12

2

FIG. 1. (color online) Single-junction transmon and quan-tum process tomography pulse sequence. (a) Optical micro-graph of single-junction transmon device. Design is similarto standard transmon devices, with interdigitated capacitorsshunting the Al/AlOx Josephson junction on either side. In-set: scanning-electron micrograph of Josephson junction, withcritical current I0 = 28 nA. (b) Pulse sequence for performingquantum process tomography. Over-complete set of rotations{I,Xπ, X±π/2, Y±π/2} are used to generate input states andto analyze the process before joint readout via the cavity.

and T(2)1 = 9.7 µs with Ramsey-fringe coherence times

of T(1)2 = 7.1 and T

(2)2 = 10.3 µs. We attribute the

improved coherence times to reduced surface loss contri-butions [19] via larger qubit feature sizes [10 µm capaci-tive shunt fingers and gaps, see Fig. 1(a)] and meticulousradiation shielding techniques [11, 20]. Further sampledetails are given in supplementary material [21].

We employ a series of repeated pulse experiments toaccurately calibrate microwave amplitudes, offsets, andphases of single-qubit rotations [21]. The single-qubitrotations are shaped gaussian envelopes (gaussian stan-dard deviation σ = 10 ns, total gate length 4σ) withderivative gaussian quadrature corrections to account forexcited state leakage [6, 22].

The two-qubit interaction is the CR effect and itsimplementation and advantages as a multi-qubit gatescheme are previously detailed in Refs. 9 and 15. Toreview, the CRij effect is exhibited as a qubit i (con-trol) state dependent drive of qubit j (target). In oursystem, we drive microwaves resonant with qubit 2 ontothe microwave bias line addressing qubit 1. A residualclassical cross-talk term is present, characterized by theparameter m12 = 0.22, which is the fraction of the directRabi frequency experienced by qubit 2 through drivingon qubit 1. The strength of the desired two-qubit quan-tum effect is bounded by the residual qubit-qubit cavity-mediated dispersive interaction, which we determine tobe J/π = 7.44 MHz from detailed spectroscopy of trans-mon energy transitions and comparison to diagonaliza-tion of the Hamiltonian for our multi-level system. The

IX IY IZ XI XX XY XZ YI YX YY YZ ZI ZX ZY ZZ II

Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r

IXIYIZXI

XXXYXZYI

YXYYYZZI

ZXZYZZ

II

Experiment


Input Pauli Operator Input Pauli OperatorIX IY IZ XI XX XY XZ YI YX YY YZ ZI ZX ZY ZZ II

IXIYIZXI

XXXYXZYI

YXYYYZZI

ZXZYZZ

II

Ideal

(a) (b)

FIG. 2. Quantum process tomography for Xπ/4 ⊗ I repre-sented as the Pauli transfer matrix R. (a) Experimentallyextracted R for Xπ/4 ⊗ I with gate fidelity Fg = 0.9687.To illustrate the action of R, an input state |00〉 (state fi-delity Fs = 0.9818) is shown above R, and the output statecos(π/8) |00〉 − i sin(π/8) |10〉 (Fs = 0.9969) is shown to theright. (b) Ideal R for Xπ/4 ⊗ I.

.

experimental tune-up and implementation of a CNOTgate with this interaction follows that of Ref. 9 and in thiswork the pulse-shape is a flat-top gaussian (σ = 10 ns)of length 110 ns.

To measure the two-qubit state, we employ a series ofjoint two-qubit measurements via non-linear driving ofthe cavity [23]. Calibrating this joint measurement [21],we perform state tomography on arbitrary two-qubitstates through the application of an overcomplete setof analysis pulses {I,Xπ, X±π/2, Y±π/2}⊗2. An efficientmaximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) algorithm [24] isused to compute two-qubit states which can be repre-sented by the Pauli state vector ~p [25]. The elementsof ~p are the expectation values of the two qubit Paulioperators, 〈UV 〉, where U, V ∈ I,X, Y, Z.

QPT is accomplished through the compilation of anovercomplete set of 36×36 measurements [Fig. 1(b)].State tomography as described above, is performedfor the 36 different input states generated by{I,Xπ, X±π/2, Y±π/2}⊗2. Instead of the standard chi-matrix representation of the process map [14], we presentthe Pauli transfer matrix R, which maps an input Paulistate vector ~pin to an output Pauli state vector ~pout,~pout = R~pin. R is obtained through a semi-definiteprogram taking into account the covariance matrix forthe different independent measurements. Here, the semi-definite program extraction of R weights the measure-ments unequally [21]. The gate fidelity Fg is calculatedfrom the R map by Fg = (Tr[R†R] + d)/(d2 + d) withd = 2n and n is the number of qubits.

We perform QPT for the processes corresponding tothe identity operation I⊗2, all independent single-qubitrotations of π, π/2 (around x- and y-axes), π/4, and π/8,as well as the CNOT12 operation. The experimentally ex-tracted map R for the universal single-qubit π/4 rotationfor qubit 1 is shown in Fig. 2(a) and the ideal Rideal is

3


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r

IXIYIZXI

XXXYXZYI

YXYYYZZI

ZXZYZZ

II

Experiment


Input Pauli Operator Input Pauli OperatorIX IY IZ XI XX XY XZ YI YX YY YZ ZI ZX ZY ZZ II

IXIYIZXI

XXXYXZYI

YXYYYZZI

ZXZYZZ

II

Ideal

(a) (b)

FIG. 3. Quantum process tomography for CNOT12 repre-sented as the Pauli transfer matrix R. (a) ExperimentallyextractedR for CNOT12 with gate fidelity Fg = 0.9507. To il-lustrate the action ofR, an input state (|0〉+i |1〉)(|0〉+i |1〉)/2(Fs = 0.9787) is shown above R, and the output entangledstate (|00〉+ i |01〉 − |10〉+ i |11〉)/2 (Fs = 0.9827, C = 0.994)is shown to the right. (b) Ideal R for CNOT12.

shown in Fig. 2(b). From R, we estimate Fg = 0.9687.The Pauli-transfer matrix R for the two-qubit entanglingCNOT12 gate is shown in Fig. 3(a), from which we es-timate Fg = 0.9507. Within this set the highest entan-gled state fidelity (Fs = 0.9827) corresponds to the state(|00〉+ i |01〉−|10〉+ i |11〉)/2, with an associated concur-rence C = 0.994. The extracted Fg for the complete setof gates are given in Table I.

Figures 2(a) and 3(a) also demonstrate the actionof the different Pauli transfer maps on specific inputstates. Above the experimentally extracted R are themeasured Pauli state-vectors corresponding to |00〉 and(|0〉 + i |1〉)(|0〉 + i |1〉)/2 in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 3(a), re-spectively. We can follow all the elements of each of thesePauli states downwards in the figures intoR, which trans-fers these weights over into the Pauli operators to theright of R. Therefore, the Pauli state to the right re-flects the output state given the operation of the mapR on the input Pauli state vector, and this visualizationvery simply demonstrates its effect.

The R representation is a more efficient and intu-itive method for representing a quantum operation thanthe standard chi-matrix [14], as it consists of only realnumbers and possesses a few other nice visual prop-erties. First, it is simple to tell if the map is tracepreserving, which amounts to RII,jk = δIjδIk for allj, k ∈ {I,X, Y, Z}. Next, we can also determine if themap is unital, ifRjk,II = δIjδIk for all j, k ∈ {I,X, Y, Z}.Finally, the elements inR are bounded by ±1 and for anyClifford operation there is exactly one non-zero elementin each row and column with unit magnitude.

It is possible to further investigate the R maps to un-derstand the errors in our system and determine whetherthe loss in fidelity for all of the gates is due to statisticalor systematic errors. For statistical errors, we use a boot-strapping method which generates new realizations of to-

Gate Fg ∆Fg (×10−4) Fpure Υnp

I ⊗ I 0.9691 3.6 0.9954 0.036

Xπ ⊗ I 0.9618 4.3 0.9935 0.029

Xπ/2 ⊗ I 0.9620 5.2 0.9955 0.030

Yπ/2 ⊗ I 0.9621 5.3 0.9956 0.046

Xπ/4 ⊗ I 0.9687 5.5 0.9962 0.038

Xπ/8 ⊗ I 0.9649 5.2 0.9962 0.038

I ⊗Xπ 0.9629 4.4 0.9906 0.033

I ⊗Xπ/2 0.9597 3.9 0.9955 0.031

I ⊗ Yπ/2 0.9569 4.6 0.9961 0.040

I ⊗Xπ/4 0.9644 4.6 0.9963 0.035

I ⊗Xπ/8 0.9666 6.0 0.9968 0.042

CNOT12 0.9507 6.5 0.9968 0.035

TABLE I. Summary of gate fidelity Fg, statistical error∆Fg, purified fidelity Fpure, and non-physical error Υnp =0.5‖RMLE−Rexp‖2 for complete universal set of gates on twoqubits.

mography experiments based off the variance of our mea-surement operator calibrations [21]. From these gener-ated experiments, new ensembles of maximum-likelihoodestimates are obtained and the variance of these ensem-bles serve as an upper bound on statistical fluctuationsof our estimated gate errors [21]. For all of the gatesstudied in this work, the statistical component is foundto be ∼ 3 − 6 × 10−4 (Table I), much smaller than theQPT extracted gate errors of ≈ 5%.

The small value for statistical fluctuations suggeststhat our primary sources of error are systematic in na-ture. These can include decoherence, over- or under-rotations, and phase errors, all of which can occur dur-ing the actual processes to be characterized, or duringthe state preparation and measurement analysis gates.Given the coherence and gate times of the process to-mography sequence, we estimate a total error of 1.62%for single qubit gates and 2.55% for the CNOT, which isstill smaller than the observed error and not the primarysource.

The remaining error can be accounted for via miscali-bration of 1% in the single-qubit gates used for prepara-tion and analysis. Simulations of the R maps includingthis level of calibration error agree well with the non-ideal elements found in the R data [21]. This is furtherconfirmed through the calculation of the purified fidelity,Fpure, which estimates how close the unitary contribu-tion of the map is to the ideal gate. Fpure is defined asthe overlap of the ideal map with the maximum eigenvec-tor of the Choi matrix [26] corresponding to RMLE [21].For all of the gates investigated, Fpure > 0.99 (Table I)indicating that we perform the correct unitary to betterthan ≈ 1%, but we are adding on non-purity conservingoperations due to systematic errors. These errors can bequantified via Υnp = 0.5‖RMLE − Rexp‖2, which is half

4

Mechanism Error

Statistical errors (∆Fg) 0.1%

T1/T2 (simulation from 1− Fg) 1.5− 2.6%

Unitary error in gate (1-Fpure) 0.5-1%

Non physical errors ( Υnp) 3%

Total (1-Fg) 3.5-5%

TABLE II. The error budget.

the 2-norm distance between the raw experimentally de-termined Rexp and the most likely physical map RMLE.For all gates Υnp ≈ 3 − 4% (Table I), which suggeststhat propagation of small errors in our preparation andmeasurement operations in the QPT accounts for a largeportion of the gate errors obtained experimentally [21].

Table II summarizes the different mechanisms to whichwe attribute our gate error budget. Further discussion re-garding these error metrics are given in the supplemen-tary material [21]. Our QPT results further reinforce theimportance of other methods for gate characterization,such as randomized benchmarking [27], as Fg can be sig-nificantly misrepresented due to small systematic errorsin preparation and analysis.

Finally, as a precursor to full randomized benchmark-ing sequences, we show C and Fs, after the repeated ap-plication of up to 12 CNOT gates on the input stategenerated by X−π/2 ⊗ I. Figure 4(a) reveals C for up to12 applications of CNOT, indicating as desired no entan-glement for even numbers (N) of gates. In Fig. 4(b), weplot the Fs of the final state to the ideal states, the Bellstate (|00〉 + i |11〉)/

√2 for odd N and the input state

(|00〉+ i |10〉)/√

2 for even N . By assuming an exponen-tial model for the state fidelity, Fs = AFNg + B, with Aand B as fit parameters (dashed black line), we extracta gate fidelity Fg = 0.9836. We find that this is in goodagreement with a simulation of Fg taking into accountthe coherence parameters of the system and the dura-tions of the gates involved in the experiment (solid blueline).

Thus, we have shown a complete universal set of high-fidelity gates on two high-coherence fixed-frequency su-perconducting qubits. Although the gate fidelities ob-tained via QPT are at the 95% level, both the analy-sis of the R maps with only 1% systematic calibrationerrors and the repeated CNOT sequences suggest thatthe intrinsic gate fidelities are > 98%, near the coher-ence time limit. Moving forward, finer pulse calibrationtune-up sequences must be implemented and gate errorswill be characterized via randomized benchmarking toavoid systematic errors in state preparation and analy-sis. Nonetheless, this demonstration further paves theroad towards > 10 qubits for implementing more compli-cated pieces of quantum error correction.

We acknowledge experimental contributions from J.

0

0.5

1

2 4 6 8 10 12

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Number of CNOT gates, N

Sta

te fi

delit

y F

s

experiment

(a)

(b)

FIG. 4. (color online) Concurrence and state fidelity after Napplications of CNOT. (a) Concurrence C of final states af-ter applying N CNOT gates to input state (|00〉+ i |10〉)/

√2.

(b) Black squares are final state fidelity Fs of experimentallyobtained states to ideal Bell (original input) state for odd(even) N . Dashed black line is a fit to the data assuming amodel of AFNg + B, where A, B, and gate fidelity Fg are fitparameters. The fit gives an error per gate 1 − Fg = 0.0164.Solid blue line is a theoretical model using the measured co-herence values and gate times.

Rohrs, B. R. Johnson, T. Ohki, J. Strand, and B.L.T.Plourde. We acknowledge support from IARPA un-der contract W911NF-10-1-0324. All statements of fact,opinion or conclusions contained herein are those of theauthors and should not be construed as representing theofficial views or policies of the U.S. Government.

[1] P. Shor, in 37th Symposium on Foundations of Com-puting (IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996) pp. 56–65;A. Steane, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sci-ences 452, 2551 (1996).

[2] S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, arXiv:quant-ph/9811052 ,(1998); R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Phys. Rev.Lett. 98, 190504 (2007).

[3] A. W. Cross, D. P. Divincenzo, and B. M. Terhal, Quan-tum Info. Comput. 9, 541 (2009).

[4] E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Jour-nal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4452 (2002).

[5] M. Steffen, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. M. Chow, T. N. Theis,and M. B. Ketchen, IBM Journal of Research and Devel-opment 55, 13:1 (2011).

[6] J. M. Chow, L. DiCarlo, J. M. Gambetta, F. Motzoi,L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys.Rev. A 82, 040305 (2010).

[7] H. Paik, D. I. Schuster, L. S. Bishop, G. Kirchmair,G. Catelani, A. P. Sears, B. R. Johnson, M. J. Reagor,L. Frunzio, L. I. Glazman, S. M. Girvin, M. H. De-voret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 240501(2011).

[8] L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. S. Bishop,B. R. Johnson, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, L. Frun-

5

zio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 460, 240(2009).

[9] J. M. Chow, A. D. Corcoles, J. M. Gambetta, C. Rigetti,B. R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe,M. B. Rothwell, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Phys.Rev. Lett. 107, 080502 (2011).

[10] L. DiCarlo, M. D. Reed, L. Sun, B. R. Johnson, J. M.Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. H.Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 467, 574 (2010);M. Neeley, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero,M. Mariantoni, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang,M. Weides, J. Wenner, Y. Yin, T. Yamamoto, A. N. Cle-land, and J. M. Martinis, Nature 467, 570 (2010).

[11] A. D. Corcoles, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, C. Rigetti,J. R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. Beth Rothwell, M. B.Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Applied Physics Letters 99,181906 (2011).

[12] C. Rigetti, S. Poletto, J. M. Gambetta, B. Plourde, J. M.Chow, A. Corcoles, S. T. Merkel, J. A. Smolin, J. R.Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, M. B. Ketchen,and M. Steffen (2012) submitted.

[13] J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I.Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin,and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007);J. A. Schreier, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, D. I. Schuster,B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Ma-jer, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J.Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. B 77, 180502(R) (2008).

[14] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computationand Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 2000).

[15] G. S. Paraoanu, Phys. Rev. B 74, 140504 (2006);C. Rigetti and M. Devoret, Phys. Rev. B 81, 134507(2010).

[16] P. C. de Groot, S. Ashhab, A. Lupascu, L. DiCarlo,F. Nori, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij,arXiv:1201.3360 , (2012).

[17] H. K. Cummins, G. Llewellyn, and J. A. Jones, Phys.Rev. A 67, 042308 (2003).

[18] M. Ansmann, H. Wang, R. C. Bialczak, M. Hofheinz,E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, M. Wei-des, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Na-ture 461, 504 (2009).

[19] J. Wenner, R. Barends, R. C. Bialczak, Y. Chen, J. Kelly,E. Lucero, M. Mariantoni, A. Megrant, P. J. J. O’Malley,D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, H. Wang, T. C. White, Y. Yin,J. Zhao, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, AppliedPhysics Letters 99, 113513 (2011).

[20] R. Barends, J. Wenner, M. Lenander, Y. Chen,R. C. Bialczak, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, P. O’Malley,M. Mariantoni, D. Sank, H. Wang, T. C. White, Y. Yin,J. Zhao, A. N. Cleland, J. M. Martinis, and J. J. A.Baselmans, Applied Physics Letters 99, 113507 (2011).

[21] See Supplemental Material for details on the sample, cal-ibration techniques, Pauli transfer map representation,and error estimates.

[22] F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K.Wilhelm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 110501 (2009).

[23] M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, B. R. Johnson, L. Sun, D. I.Schuster, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev.Lett. 105, 173601 (2010).

[24] J. A. Smolin, J. M. Gambetta, and G. Smith, Phys. Rev.Lett. 108, 070502 (2012).

[25] J. M. Chow, L. DiCarlo, J. M. Gambetta, A. Nun-

nenkamp, L. S. Bishop, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M.Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A 81, 062325(2010).

[26] M.-D. Choi, Linear Algebra and its Applications 10, 285(1975).

[27] E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Phys.Rev. Lett. 106, 180504 (2011).

Supplementary material for ‘Complete universal quantum gate set approachingfault-tolerant thresholds with superconducting qubits’

Jerry M. Chow,1 Jay M. Gambetta,1 A. D. Corcoles,1 Seth T. Merkel,1 John A. Smolin,1 Chad Rigetti,1 S.

Poletto,1 George A. Keefe,1 Mary B. Rothwell,1 J. R. Rozen,1 Mark B. Ketchen,1 and M. Steffen1

1IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA(Dated: February 27, 2012)

SAMPLE PARAMETERS AND CALIBRATION

The single-junction transmon ground to first excited-state frequencies are at f01

1 = 5.0554 GHz and f012 =

4.9895 GHz. From spectroscopy of the system with vary-ing powers, we locate multi-photon transitions up to thethird excited-state: f02

1 /2 = 4.9454 GHz, f031 /3 = 4.8296

GHz, f022 /2 = 4.8753 GHz, f03

1 /3 = 4.7497 GHz. We es-timate the crosstalk parameter m12 = 0.22 from Rabidriving qubit 2 via the bias line associated with qubit 1and comparing with the same drive but applied directlyto qubit 2. From all the transitions of the two transmons,by using a model assuming transverse coupling betweenthe two qubits, we estimate the coupling strength to beJ/2π = 7.44 MHz. We also estimate a residual ZZ inter-action of 1.1 MHz between the qubits via Ramsey fringeexperiments with and without one of the qubits in theexcited state.

Single-qubit π/2 and π pulses are calibrated us-ing sets of repeated sequences. First, the π/2 am-plitudes are tuned up by measuring the cavity re-sponse after {Xπ/2, [Xπ/2, Xπ/2]N} for N up to 30.Then, we bootstrap off the tuned up π/2 pulse tofind the appropriate π amplitude via the pulse train{Xπ/2, [Xπ]N}, again for N up to 30 pulses. Finally,the derivative-pulse shaping (DRAG) parameters [1]and gain imbalance between x and y rotations aretuned via the experiments, {Xπ/2, [Xπ/2,−Xπ/2]N} and{Xπ/2, [Xπ/2, Yπ/2,−Yπ/2,−Xπ/2]N} also for N up to 30.

REPRESENTATIONS OF A MAP

Defining Hd as a Hilbert space of dimensions d, andL(Hd) as the space of linear operators on Hd, then theChoi-Jamiolkowski isomorphism states that any map Λ :L(Hd)→ L(Hd) can be represented by the Choi matrix

ρΛ =1

d

∑

i,j

Eij ⊗ Λ(Eij). (1)

Here ρΛ ∈ L(Hd ⊗ Hd) and Eij is the matrix with 1 inthe ijth entry and 0’s elsewhere. In ref. 2, Choi provedthat Λ is completely positive if and only if ρΛ is positivesemidefinite.

The Choi matrix allows us to test if the map is tracepreserving by TrB[ρΛ] = I/d and if the map is unital by

TrA[ρΛ] = I/d. Furthermore, the action of the map onany state ρ ∈ L(Hd) is given by

Λ(ρ) = dTrA[(ρT ⊗ I)ρΛ]. (2)

An alternative representation of a map is the Paulitransfer matrix, R, defined by

Rij =1

dTr(PiΛ(Pj)). (3)

This representation is simply the Choi matrix expandedin the Pauli operator basis (here the Pj ’s represent someordering of the strings of Pauli operators {I, σx, σy, σz}),since it is easy to show that

Rij = Tr[ρΛPTj ⊗ Pi], (4)

and therefore

ρΛ =1

d2

∑

i,j

RijPTj ⊗ Pi. (5)

This is a useful representation as the act of the map ona state ρ in the Pauli representation (ρ = 1

d~p · ~P ) is asimple matrix transformation of the Pauli state-vector ~pgiven by

~p′ = R~p, (6)

which is obvious from our definition of R. Therefore, thePauli transfer matrix is also related to the Liouville or su-peroperator representation by a simple basis transforma-tion (the transformation from Eij to Pk) and compositionof maps is described simply by matrix multiplication.

TheRmatrix has a few nice properties when comparedto the standard chi-matrix [3] for determining whether amap is physical. First, R consists of only real numbersand so contains exactly the same number of parametersas the gate, with no redundancy due to Hermiticity. Sec-ond, it is easy to see what operators are mapped to andfrom the identity by looking at the final row and col-umn respectively (assuming Pd2 = I). If only the iden-tity is mapped back onto itself, then the map is trace-preserving, and if the identity remains the identity themap is unitial. This corresponds to a final row or col-umn of all zeros and a single one. Lastly, the elementsof R are bounded by ±1, and for any Clifford operationsthere is exactly one non-zero element in each row and

arX

iv:1

202.

5344

v1 [

quan

t-ph

] 2

3 Fe

b 20

12

2

Input Pauli Operator

Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Maximum likelihood Theory

FIG. 1. A comparison of the theoretical and experimentally reconstructed R matrices for the gatesI⊗Xπ/8, I⊗Xπ/4, I⊗Xπ/2,I ⊗Xπ.

3


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


FIG. 2. A comparison of the theoretical and experimentally reconstructed R matrices for the gates Xπ/8⊗I, Xπ/4⊗I, Xπ/2⊗I,Xπ ⊗ I.

4


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


FIG. 3. A comparison of the theoretical and experimentally reconstructed R matrices for the gates I ⊗ I, CNOT, Yπ/2⊗ I andI ⊗ Yπ/2.

5

column with magnitude one, as Clifford operators sim-ply map Pauli operators to other Pauli operators.

The average gate fidelity can be found by [4]

Fg =dFp + 1

d+ 1(7)

where the process fidelity is given by

Fp = Tr[ρidealρexp] = Tr[RTidealRexp]/d2, (8)

assuming that the ideal map is a unitary map.

QUANTUM PROCESS TOMOGRAPHY

The Likelihood function

Measurements in quantum mechanics can be rep-resented by positive operator valued measurements(POVMs). Mathematically, a POVM is a decompositionof the identity into positive semidefinite Hermitian oper-ators

∑nk=1Ek = I. The probability of each outcome k

when state ρ is measured is Tr(Ekρ). In the continuouslimit we have instead

∫dmEm = I and the probability

density for measurement outcome m is p(m) = Tr(Emρ).For a measurement of observable M =

∑imi|i〉〈i| with

Gaussian noise of variance v (as common with real am-plifiers) the POVM is

Em =1√2πv

∑

i

e−(m−mi)2/(2v)|i〉〈i| (9)

and the probability density for measurement outcome mis

P (m|ρ) =1√2πv

∑

i

e−(m−mi)2/(2v)P (i|ρ). (10)

If we sample from this distribution N times and are inter-ested in m =

∑nm

(n)/N then the central limit theoremasserts that as N → ∞, the distribution of m approxi-mates a normal distribution with mean Tr[Mρ] and vari-ance v/N ,

P (m|ρ) =1√

2πv/Ne−(m−Tr[Mρ])2/(2v/N). (11)

To have complete information about the quantum op-erations we need to measure a set of linear independentobservables and prepare linearly independent states. Toachieve this we assume that the initial state can be reli-ably be prepared in the ground state and the measure-ment operator (M) is diagonal. Experimentally, fromapplications of {I,Xπ}⊗2 pulses we reconstruct the out-comes of the measurement M . For this work we findM00 = 0.0035, M01 = 0.0196, M10 = 0.0302, andM11 = 0.0323 with a standard deviation of

√v = 0.0143

(all units µV ). Having characterized the initial state andthe measurement operator, we can completely determineR from data obtained for the applications of the pulses{I,Xπ, X±π/2, Y±π/2}⊗2 before and after the operationto be analyzed.

Defining mij as the measurement result for the ith

preparation and jth measurement we write the Likeli-hood function

L(Λ) =∏

i,j

P (mij |Λ) =∏

i,j

e−(mij−mij)2/(2vj/N)

√2πvj/N

(12)

where

mij = Tr[MjΛ(ρi)] =1

d

∑

mn

Tr[ρiPn]Tr[MjPm]Rmn.

(13)Here we have allowed the measurements to have differentvariances. Maximizing this likelihood function is equiva-lent to minimizing the negative log-likelihood function,

Llog =∑

ij

[mij − mij ]2/vi, (14)

and so then the problem of Quantum Process Tomogra-phy (QPT) becomes

minimize ~δ(Λ)TV −1~δ(Λ)

subject to ρΛ ≥ 0.(15)

Here δ(Λ) = mij − mij and V is the covariance matrix.

Maximum Likelihood estimation using asemidefinite program

A general semidefinite program (SDP) can be ex-pressed in the standard form:

minimize ~bT~x

subject to F0 +∑

i

Fixi ≥ 0(16)

where the n-element real vector ~x contains the variablesto be optimized with respect to the linear objective func-tion described by an n-element real vector ~b and con-strained by the constraints are described by a set of m-by-m Hermitian matrices F0, Fi where i = 1, ...n.

Since the objective function of Eq. (15) is quadratic, itis not in the standard form. In order to rectify this we in-troduce a slack variable t defined by t−~δ(Λ)TV −1~δ(Λ) ≥0. By the Schur complement the previous inequality issatisfied if and only if

Z =

(t ~δ~δT V

)≥ 0 (17)

6

Gate Fp Fg ∆Fg RI,I Fpure λmax

∑λ<0 λ 0.5‖ρMLE − ρideal‖2 0.5‖ρMLE − ρdata‖2 0.5‖ρdata − ρideal‖2

(×10−4)

I ⊗ I 0.9614 0.9691 3.6 1.0043 0.9954 0.9656 -0.082 0.050 0.036 0.062

Xπ ⊗ I 0.9522 0.9618 4.3 1.0013 0.9935 0.9584 -0.079 0.061 0.029 0.063

Xπ/2 ⊗ I 0.9525 0.9620 5.2 1.0009 0.9955 0.9568 -0.083 0.053 0.030 0.059

Yπ/2 ⊗ I 0.9526 0.9621 5.3 1.0018 0.9956 0.9568 -0.119 0.052 0.046 0.070

Xπ/4 ⊗ I 0.9608 0.9687 5.5 0.9975 0.9962 0.9644 -0.096 0.047 0.038 0.059

Xπ/8 ⊗ I 0.9561 0.9649 5.2 0.9980 0.9962 0.9597 -0.088 0.048 0.038 0.062

I ⊗Xπ 0.9537 0.9629 4.4 0.9987 0.9906 0.9627 -0.090 0.071 0.033 0.076

I ⊗Xπ/2 0.9497 0.9597 3.9 0.9954 0.9955 0.9539 -0.081 0.054 0.031 0.062

I ⊗ Yπ/2 0.9461 0.9569 4.6 1.0006 0.9961 0.9498 -0.104 0.052 0.040 0.065

I ⊗Xπ/4 0.9554 0.9644 4.6 0.9970 0.9963 0.9590 -0.091 0.048 0.035 0.058

I ⊗Xπ/8 0.9583 0.9666 6.0 0.9964 0.9968 0.9613 -0.106 0.045 0.042 0.061

CNOT 0.9384 0.9507 6.5 1.0031 0.9986 0.9396 -0.105 0.044 0.035 0.055

TABLE I. A compilation of various error measure and measures of physicality for our universal set of quantum gates. Thecolumns, from left to right, contain: the name of the gate, the process fidelity, the gate fidelity, the error in gate fidelity foundfrom bootstrapping, the value of the Pauli transfer matrix from the identity to the identity (should be unity for a physical map),the purified fidelity, the maximum eigenvalue of the reconstructed state, the sum of the negative eigenvalues of the reconstructedstate obtained by simple matrix inversion and finally three two norm distances between the pairwise combinations of the idealgate (ρideal), the physical maximum likelihood estimate (ρMLE) and the unphysical gate obtained by inverting the data (ρdata).

and V ≥ 0. Therefore, we can express the QPT problemas

minimize ~bT~y

subject to A =

(Z 0

0 ρΛ

)≥ 0

(18)

where b = {1, 0d4} and ~y = {t, ~r} with ~r being thecolumn-major vector representation of R. Althoughthere are many numerical libraries for solving semidef-inite programs in this standard form, we choose to useSeDuMi [5].

In Fig. 1 - 3 we show the experimental R ma-trix after applying MLE as well as the theoreticalR. These are plotted for the measured operations{I,Xπ/8, Xπ/4, Xπ/2, Xπ, Yπ/2}⊗2 and CNOT. The cor-responding gate fidelities are shown in Table I, and areall above 0.95.

ERROR ESTIMATION

Statistical analysis of errors

The conceptually simplest way to obtain a confidenceregion on our QPT extracted error rates would be tocalculate

p =

∫

SdρΛP (ρΛ|data) =

∫S dρΛL(ρΛ)∫V dρΛL(ρΛ)

(19)

where we interpret S as the region that contains the ac-tual state with probability p (V is the entire space of

Choi matrices). Even if we model the noise on our mea-surements as Gaussian, constraining the domain of thelikelihood function to the set of positive semidefinite ma-trices makes this integration extremely difficult.

The simplest way to bound the error due to any noiseprocess would be to take many independent realizationsof an experiment. However, given reduced measurementfidelities, it can be costly to run the experiment a largenumber of times, and instead we can use a bootstrappingmethod to approximate a new realization of the noise onan existing data set. Given the measurement record mij

we can simulate

m(k)ij = mij +

√vj/NW

(k)ij . (20)

where W(k)ij is a gaussian random variable of mean 0 and

variance 1 and N = 10000. From this new measurementrecord we can compute an ensemble of maximum like-

lihood estimates ρ(k)MLE. This ensemble is not the same

as averaging over different realizations (in particular themean is offset) but the variance of the distribution servesas an upper bound on the statistical fluctuations in theestimate. In Table I the error for one standard deviationgives about 5 × 10−4, which is much smaller than themeasured error (≈ 5%).

Systematic errors

There are a number of errors that can lead to sys-tematic errors such as decoherence, over-under rotations,phase errors, etc. These errors can occur in both the gate

7


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

(a) (b)


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Out

put P

auli

Ope

rato

r


IX

IY

IZ

XI

XX

XY

XZ

YI

YX

YY

YZ

ZI

ZX

ZY

ZZ

II−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

(c) (d)

FIG. 4. The R matrix for (a) a Xπ/2⊗ I with a 1% under rotation and 1% phase error, (b) I ⊗Xπ/2 with a 1% under rotationand 1% phase error, (c) a amplitude damping channel (with error probability of 0.5), (d) a dephasing channel (with errorprobability of 0.5).

being characterized as well as the gates used in the anal-ysis and input state preparations. Some examples of Rmaps for these types of errors are shown in Fig. 4.

In our experiment the coherence times were T(1)1 =

8.2 µs, T(2)1 = 9.7 µs, T

(1)2 = 7.1 µs and T

(2)2 = 10.3 µs

and we can estimate that this would lead to an error of1.62% for the single qubit gates (total time for prepara-tion, process and analysis pulses of 120 ns) and 2.55%for the CNOT (total time 190 ns). This is much smallerthan the observed error, making it likely that there areother, larger sources of error as well. This is confirmed bylooking more closely at the R matrix, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.The features associated with amplitude damping are notpresent, whereas we clearly see signatures of under rota-tions and phase errors, see the R plots of the Xπ/2 ⊗ Iand I ⊗ Xπ/2 in Fig 4. We estimate that this coherenterror accounts for about 1% of the total gate error inour experiment. This is confirmed to some extent by thehigh values in the purified fidelity. The purified fidelityis the overlap of the largest weighted eigenvector withthe ideal state (Fpure = Tr[ρidealρλmax

]. This confirmsthat we are making the correct unitary with ≈ 0.5− 1%

error but we are adding on to it some non-purity con-serving operations from systematic errors (the weight ofthe maximum eigenvalue is about 0.94-0.96).

To have a measure of the systematic errors we recon-struct a R matrix without enforcing the Choi matrix tobe positive semidefinite. This is done by using

~r = (WTW )−1WT ~m (21)

where ~m is the column-major vector representation of m(measured data) and W is the transfer matrix definedby Eq. (13). To quantify how much the R matrix haschanged due to the SDP, we calculate the total weight ofnegative eigenvalues (see Table I). Here we see that about10% of the eigenvalue weight is negative. Since rotationaland phase errors in the operation pulse can not result innon-physical operations and our statistical fluctuationsare small this must arise from errors in the preparationand mesaurement pulses. To estimate the error inducedby this we calculate the 2-norm distance,

‖ρ1 − ρ2‖2 =√

Tr[|ρ1 − ρ2|] (22)

between the Choi matrices of the maximum likelihood es-timate, a direct (nonphysical) inversion of the data, and

8

〈Fg〉 Fg 0.5‖ρMLE − ρideal‖2(Tomography Pulses)

0.9434 0.8627 0.2359

0.9885 0.9569 0.1088

0.9942 0.9729 0.0802

0.9988 0.9904 0.0355

TABLE II. Simulations of tomography results when faultypreparation and measurement pulses are used to reconstructa perfect identity operation. Each simulation is averaged overten random gate set errors.

the ideal map. These results suggest that we have abouta 5% error from the ideal operation and the physical oper-ations have about a 3−4% error from the reconstructed.This is all consistent with the analyzing pulses havingover/under rotations and phase errors which can be veryloosely thought of as a mechanism that reduces the pu-rity of the operation (add more non-zero eigenvalues tothe Choi matrix).

One simple test of this conjecture is to simu-late the tomography data for a perfect process us-ing preparation and measurement pulses drawn froma faulty gate set. We take the 36 element gate set{I,Xπ, X±π/2, Y±π/2}⊗2 and apply an independent uni-tary error Uε = exp(−iεHrand/2) to each gate, whereHrand is a random Hamiltonian of unit norm. The re-sulting error in the gate fidelity for each preparation ormeasurement pulse is approximatly (ε/2)2. In table IIwe simulate measurement data assusming a perfect iden-tity gate. Small errors in the analyzing gates can leadto significant errors in the tomgraphy. In particular, er-rors of around 1% lead to the expected 3− 4% errors inreconstruction, even if the gate being analyzed is a per-fect identity transformation. This error due to processtomography appears to become more severe as a ratioof the single gate error as the gates get more precise,and we conjecture that it will also scale poorly with thedimension of the system.

[1] J. M. Chow, et al., Phys. Rev. A 82, 040305 (2010).[2] M. D. Choi, Linear Algebra and its Applications 10, 285

(1975).[3] I. L. Chuang and M. A. Nielsen, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 2455

(1997).[4] M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Lett. A 303, 249 (2002).[5] J. F. Sturm, Optimization Methods and Software. 11,

625–653 (1999).

superconducting qubits - arxiv · 2012. 2. 27. · the two-qubit interaction is the cr e ect and...

Documents